Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers lawyers know property division rules for couples in adult interdependent relationships differ markedly from those for married couples. The best Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers explain that the property division rules for common law marriage clients apply a test of unjust enrichment and joint family venture analysis. MacLean Family Law is one of Canada’s largest and most highly rated family firms and you can reach our Calgary common law marriage lawyers at 403-444-5503.
Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers Explain The Rules
When an unmarried couple works jointly to acquire a home or a business or other property and it is registered in one or both of their names how does a court divide it when they separate?
MacLean Family Law is a multiple award winner of Top Choice Awards best Vancouver Family Law Firm and we now bring that same passion and skill to our new downtown Calgary family law office in Bankers Hall.
Lorne N MacLean, QC leads a growing team of highly motivated Calgary family lawyers who help people resolve:
- high net worth property valuation and division and cases
- spousal support disputes
- child support claims
- high conflict child parenting time and custody cases
- adult interdependent relationship claims
- appeals to all levels of court including the Supreme Court of Canada
Hiring top Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers Increases Chances of Success
In today’s blog, Lorne N MacLean, QC founder of our team of Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers provides key extracts from an adult interdependent relationship and potential common law marriage case to help explain how property is divided. This case involved a claim before trial for monies to be advanced, The Court of Appeal set aside an interim advance of $350,000 because the trial judge did not have the evidence in front of him to properly advance this money. Conviently, they summarized the property division test to be used by Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers and their clients.
Our Calgary common law marriage lawyers note that in Von Sass v De Ruiter, 2016 ABCA 299 Alberta’s highest court restated the rules for dividing property for unmarried couples in common law relationships:
[5] In Kerr v Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2011] 1 SCR 269, the most recent and leading authority dealing with unjust enrichment claims in a domestic setting, the Court, at para 31, stated that there are three primary elements of an unjust enrichment claim: 1) an enrichment; 2) a corresponding deprivation; and 3) the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment i.e. that there is no reason in law or justice for the defendant’s retention of the benefit conferred by the plaintiff, thus making its retention “unjust” in the circumstances;…
[6] In the recent decision of Wills v Kennedy, 2015 NBCA 31 (CanLII), the appeal was allowed because, while the Chambers judge looked at the relevant evidence that could lead to a finding of unjust enrichment, he did not undertake the required analysis.
[7] The Chambers judge implicitly considered the first part of the three part test for undue enrichment, concluding that there was an enrichment of Mr. de Ruiter by way of her payment of $351,000 in 2007 to purchase the home in which the parties resided, being the proceeds from the sale of a home she owned previously to that time. Her parents contributed a further $125,000 toward the purchase of the new home. A dispute exists as to whether those funds were a gift to Ms. von Sass or a donation to Mr. de Ruiter’s ministry by her parents.
[8] The Chambers judge did not consider the remaining two parts of the test, whether a corresponding deprivation to Ms. van Sass arose, and whether a juristic reason existed to justify the entitlement. A deprivation would arguably only arise if, after any contributions to Ms. von Sass by Mr. de Ruiter over time, her contribution unjustly exceeded his. The Chambers judge mentions no specific evidence of what contributions Mr. de Ruiter made to her directly, to the purchase of the house or to their joint business activities. The parties operated a business together from which they supported themselves while they cohabited. Ms. von Sass’ sister was also involved and has a claim against Mr. de Ruiter’s business and other assets.
[9] While this is not a matrimonial property claim, the approach used in valuing such claims is informative. Here, as in that type of case, all contributions, financial and otherwise, of each party to the acquisition of assets to be divided, must be made, to allow for the calculation of the quantum of the resulting payment or asset transfer to be made to one party by the other. The Chambers judge made no effort to do so; the affidavit evidence before him may not have been sufficiently particularized to allow this to happen. This is not to say that the unjust enrichment claim might not succeed. But the Chambers judge was in no position to decide that either finally or on an interim basis on what he had before him then.
Our Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers know statistics indicate people living in marriage like or common law marriages in Calgary and across Canada are on the rise. So, if you feel you gave more to your Calgary common law relationship than you are being offered on separation call us immediately so we can help make things right.
For free information on family law you can go to this very informative Alberta Government site
However, there is no replacement for skilled legal advice on your own situation form skilled Calgary Common Law Unjust Enrichment Lawyers. Calgary common law marriage lawyers warn you that deadlines apply so do not wait pick up the phone and call us so you know what your rights and obligations are. Lorne N MacLean, QC and his team are waiting to help.
